Re: WCIT outcome?

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

On 29 dec 2012, at 19:19, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ITU must change if it is to survive. But it was merely a means to an end. There is no reason that the ITU 'must' be kept in existence for its own sake. 
> 
> Tim Berners-Lee has on numerous W3C AC meetings reminded people about the X-Windows consortium that did its job and then shut down.

There are, IMHO, two major differences between the "old world" and the "new world":

In the new world, there are many different SDOs that are, in combination, bringing whatever "standards" are needed to the table. In the old world, there was only one.

In the new world, "governance" is no longer "by decree", "by legislation" or similar. In the new world we use the word "collaboration", and that is done via policy development processes that are multi stakeholder and bottom up. Like in the RIRs (for IP addresses etc), like in ICANN (for domain names) or locally for the various (successful) ccTLDs that are out there. And of course in the various industry consortia that bring so many valuable specifications to the table.

This is, I claim, ratified in the UN context in the outcome we call "The Tunis Agenda" and it has come back over and over again. In various formats, using slightly different wordings, but always the same theme.

Sometimes, I do though think also IETF participants should think a bit more about what the basic principles are for them. Why they fight for their views. What could make them give up. What the values are that they think are essential. That they are ready to really fight for.

   Patrik Fältström
   Chair of ICANN SSAC
   Former member of IESG, IAB etc and delegate of the Swedish Delegation at WCIT-12